5 ms·

Interesting. I always thought that living beings age just because they were programmed to do so, because that's how the genetic algorithm works I guess.

tensor 16y ago
Programmed isn't quit the right word. It is true that aging is in our genetic code, but it has arising via random mutation combined with selection. This case is hypothesized to be a result of yet another random mutation that has tampered with the aging mechanics. Thus, it's interest to scientists.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Death supposedly helps evolution by removing previous iterations of the genome from the gene pool, leaving newer, allegedly better adapted, "models" with less competition. It works cross-species - if your species does not provide better adapted generations for some time, it will be outcompeted into extinction.
  - possibilistic 16y ago
    A really ineresting way to look at aging is this: if longer life was evolutionarily advantageous, we would have evolved additional molecular mechanisms to support it. It's not that by dying earlier we keep the gene pool fitter, because that's not how evolution works. (We'd otherwise have a much more complicated algorithm on our hands.) Rather, we die simply because there is no advantage in having us persist--we only gained and conserved what was optimal for our species' lifecycle. Anything else requires extra energy and support machinery and is not likely to be amplified since occasional breakdowns are likely to be serious or fatal (and more common with the increased complexity!) Compare gymnosperms (conifers) and certain angiosperms (flowering plants). The former persist for long periods under drought and stress conditions and only bear seeds after a two-year long development. Some desert angiosperms sprout, pollinate, spread seeds, then die in the span of a week. -- Different evolutionary strategies evolved under different environments and selection pressures. (Concession: evolution isn't "optimal", but it has found good enough solutions that I often call it such.)

tensor 16y ago

Programmed isn't quit the right word. It is true that aging is in our genetic code, but it has arising via random mutation combined with selection. This case is hypothesized to be a result of yet another random mutation that has tampered with the aging mechanics. Thus, it's interest to scientists.

rbanffy 16y ago
Death supposedly helps evolution by removing previous iterations of the genome from the gene pool, leaving newer, allegedly better adapted, "models" with less competition. It works cross-species - if your species does not provide better adapted generations for some time, it will be outcompeted into extinction.
- possibilistic 16y ago
  A really ineresting way to look at aging is this: if longer life was evolutionarily advantageous, we would have evolved additional molecular mechanisms to support it. It's not that by dying earlier we keep the gene pool fitter, because that's not how evolution works. (We'd otherwise have a much more complicated algorithm on our hands.) Rather, we die simply because there is no advantage in having us persist--we only gained and conserved what was optimal for our species' lifecycle. Anything else requires extra energy and support machinery and is not likely to be amplified since occasional breakdowns are likely to be serious or fatal (and more common with the increased complexity!) Compare gymnosperms (conifers) and certain angiosperms (flowering plants). The former persist for long periods under drought and stress conditions and only bear seeds after a two-year long development. Some desert angiosperms sprout, pollinate, spread seeds, then die in the span of a week. -- Different evolutionary strategies evolved under different environments and selection pressures. (Concession: evolution isn't "optimal", but it has found good enough solutions that I often call it such.)